ORDER :

This Criminal Appeal has been filed seeking to set aside the judgment in S.C.No.298 of 2016, on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Salem dated 31.10.2019.

2. The respondent police registered a case against the appellant for the offence punishable under section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and section 323 IPC r/w. section 3(1)(va) of the Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe (Prevention of the Atrocities Act as amended for the Ordinance 2014. After the investigation, they laid charge sheet before the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Omalur and the same was taken on file in P.R.C.No.29 of 2014 and after completing the formality, committed the case to the Designated Court(Principal Sessions Judge, Salem) and the learned Sessions Judge after completing formality taken the case on file in S.C.No.298 of 2016 and after framing charges and trial, convicted the appellant as under :

(i) In respect of first charge against the accused he is convicted for for the offence punishable under section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act as amended for the Ordinance 2014 and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and shall pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default shall undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for nine months.

(ii) In respect of second charge against the accused he is convicted for the offence punishable under section 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act as amended for the Ordinance 2014 and sentenced to under go Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and shall pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default shall undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 9 months.

(iii) In respect of third charge against the accused he is convicted for offence punishable under section 323 IPC r/w.3(1)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act as amended for the ordinance 2014 and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and shall pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default shall undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 months. Challenging the said judgment of conviction and sentence the appellant is before this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there is a delay in filing the case but no proper explanation. He further submitted that the date of occurrence was on 30.08.2014 at about 4.00 p.m., on the very same day, the investigating officer was said to have been appointed by the competent authority, which is not at all possible and the investigating officer was not properly authorized to investigate the case and the Investigating Officer without any authority has conducted the investigation. Therefore this itself go to the root of the case and fatal to the case of the prosecution and the allegations not fall under section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes (POA) amendment Ordinance 2014 and the learned designated Court failed to apply its mind and also failed to appreciate the evidence which does not establish any ingredients of section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and section 323 r/w.3(1)(va) of SC/ST of (Prevention of Atrocities) Act as amended for the Ordinance, 2014 and it would not attract any offence. Though P.W.4 is stated to have been an eye witness, he has not supported the case of the prosecution and the place of alleged occurrence is not within the public view but it is within four walls of the building. Therefore the place of alleged occurrence is not public place, therefore the Act would not attract. The learned Sessions Judge failed to take into account all the factors and convicted the appellant without any material.

4. The defacto complainant was a tenant under the uncle of the appellant and the dispute arose regarding vacating premises by the tenant. The prosecution case also admitted that there was dispute between landlord and tenant with regard to vacate the premises. Therefore, in order to avoid action, P.W.1 foisted false case against the appellant and the learned trial Judg